And this is part of the liturgy. Don’t underestimate these facts. The fact how the priest dresses, the fact what the priest says, the gestures the priest makes, what the church looks like, how you behave with the faithful. It’s all part of liturgy.

Now, what’s the type of grace, quoting quote, that holy Mass gives you? Well, our Lord himself. And how does it give you our Lord himself? Through the sacrifice of Calvary. That means if Mass does not show you the sacrifice, it cannot give you the grace. So, Mass does not consist of the book alone. And when you go into modern churches today, you will find that every single church is different, every single priest is different, every single sermon is different, and every single faith is different, except there’s one thing common to all. A tasteless banality to the liturgy celebrated, including the archetype cliche dining table with two ashtrays and candles in it, and a bouquet of flowers. Like on the dining table, you have to have right here bouquet of flowers. You do not see what’s going on, you do not understand what’s going on, but you go home because you heard everything in English and say, „Now finally I understand.‟ I can’t tell you how often I have met people who said to me, „I’m so glad Mass is celebrated in English now, because now I understand.‟ And then I ask them some questions and I found out they understand much less, much less than the people in the old days did who had the Baltimore Catechism or the Catechism of Saint Pius X and heard the Mass in Latin and did not have the Sunday missal in those days. The Sunday missal is a new invention. In the old days, you would have no idea what the priest was saying. But the Baltimore Catechism told you what Mass was all about. And if I ask one of the faithful, he will tell me what it is. As a matter of fact, I work very often for the Society of Saint Pius X, and when I ask the faithful what mass is about, I get very precise, very clear, and very understandable answers. How come? They never hear an English word on the altar. How come they understand? When I go to the Novus Ordo people, I get some real garbage about the social purpose of mass and help the poor. It’s fine to help the poor. Salvation Army does that. Okay. Join the Salvation Army and leave the Catholic Church. Fine. Good for me. But if you want to save your soul before you want to be able to save the poor, then you will have to go along with the doctrine of the Church. And the doctrine of the Church, you cannot find in the new mass. The new mass is very accommodating to modern consciences, because it doesn’t speak about sacrifice, it doesn’t speak about penance, it doesn’t speak about sin. And isn’t that convenient? How nice a life if I don’t have to sacrifice, if I don’t have to give up anything, if I don’t have to live an inconvenient life? And this is exactly the reason why so many people just don’t bother to go to church anymore, because if they want to hear whatever is permitted to them, they just have to switch on the TV, and they will get the same garbage there. And it’s much more convenient.

And all this together, you have to remember what I said before. Do not participate in something which is against divine law. Do not participate in something which is a doubtful action in sacris, as we say. Especially in sacred things, you do not go the course of the doubtful course. Like, if you’re not sure if your child was baptized, you won’t say, „Oh, I don’t care.‟ You’ll have it re-baptized conditionally, in which case the priest will have to say, „If you are not yet baptized, then I baptize thee in the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit,‟ if you don’t know. If you discover, if you find a child somewhere in the street, and you feel mercy for that poor child and you feel compassion and you adopt the child and you don’t know if it’s baptized, you’re certainly going to have it baptized conditionally, right? You won’t go the course, you will go the safer course. You will always make sure. And this is why when a priest, for some reason is distracted at mass, and from one moment to the other, he doesn’t know, has he said the words of consecration yet, it can happen. Things like that can happen. He will definitely say them again conditionally. He will always do, he will always follow the safer course.

And when you take your time to think about what I said, you will find out that it is impossible to attend the new mass in good conscience, except for social purposes, as I said before. But that does not fulfill your Sunday obligation. And I tell you, in my priestly authority, if you think that you can fulfill your Sunday obligation in the new mass, you’re wrong. You cannot. Don’t worry about the past. If you didn’t know that, you fulfilled your Sunday obligation subjectively. Not objectively, but subjectively. And here’s a distinction I gave to my audience yesterday already. Subjective and objective. But you won’t believe how many people don’t know the distinction of those two. Subjective means the person concerned. Objective means the thing concerned. You might commit a sin objectively and not commit it subjectively because you didn’t know it was a sin. You might commit a sin subjectively but not objectively because you think it’s a sin and you do it anyway, and in reality, it’s not a sin. You understand the distinction, subjective, objective? So, if in the past you went to Sunday Mass at the regular local parish, don’t worry, you don’t have to confess this. You didn’t know about it. But now I tell you, and I gave you reasons, and you can hear them over and over again on tape and video, I gave you reasons. And believe me, you can look up the sources of my information, and I will indicate a few of those to you. And you will see that what I said has a ground to it. It’s good theology, it’s sound theology, because I quote the Popes and not modern theologians. I’m not interested in what the modernists have to say. I’m interested in what the church said. And I repeat, the church doctrine cannot change, ever. The truth can’t change. Impossible. The eternal truth cannot change. And if the Council of Trent said that Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, nobody can ever take that back.

So, in the future, if you have too much trouble to go to the old Mass because you would have to drive two hours, stay home and say a rosary. You’ll fulfill your Sunday obligation. Why? Look, what does the third commandment say? The third commandment says, „Sanctify Sabbath,‟ which means, for us, Sunday. Sanctify Sunday. That means do not make business on Sunday if you can avoid it. Do not work on Sunday. Praise the Lord on Sunday. The church says, and the church has all the right to say that, the church says, the best way, and the way the church wants us to sanctify Sunday, is to attend Mass. But to attend Mass is not a divine commandment, but a church commandment. So, it’s human law. Human law can be dispensed of as it is said in Latin, ob grave incommodum, on the grave incommodity. And Father Schmidberger of the Society of Saint Pius X once was asked what that means, and he said, „Well, you certainly don’t have to drive two hours over icy roads in winter to attend Mass, because you’re risking your life just to attend Mass.‟ If you do it, it’s a nice thing, and it may be a great merit, but you do not have to do it. But if you can find a Mass in the old rite within an hour from here, and you don’t go, then you do not fulfill Sunday obligation, period.

I know that this sounds very harsh and hard to you. And Americans always have to be nice. And I try to be nice, but I’m not nice to you if I tell you something which is wrong and might put your soul in danger. I don’t think I will be a very nice and kind person if I do not inform you about the truth. And unfortunately, I do not have the necessary four hours to explain everything in detail to you right now. So, I have to be straight and direct to the point. Do not go to the new Mass. It’s a sin. And if you can, go to the old Mass, or it’s a sin again. And if you complain about mentioning sin all the time, please don’t, because you might complain in all eternity down in hell if you do not respect what I say now, watch it. We have to walk the tightrope here on Earth, believe me. It is not easy to live a life of grace. Temptations are everywhere. And many people think temptations are only existing as far as smoking, drinking, eating, and sex is concerned. Now, rest assured, there’s 100 more temptations, 1,000 more temptations. And we do not only have the sixth commandment, the only commandment our present pope preaches about. We have another nine commandments, too, starting with the first commandment, only one God, only one church, only one faith. That’s the most important commandment. It’s the first of our commandments. And if you want sanctify Sunday, can you logically, generally speaking, not about what we said today, but generally speaking, I think you would all agree with me when I say, obviously, you cannot sanctify the Sunday by doing something wrong. And I tell you that attending the new Mass is something wrong for the reasons I gave, and I don’t have to repeat now.

Thank you, Father. Thank you. Looks like you said it all. (laughs)

No, I didn’t. I’m just waiting for the questions.

Question: You said, „Novus Ordo is illicit.‟ Well, what do you mean by this, and why is it true?

Answer: Excuse me?

Questioner: You said it’s a sin to go to the new Mass. You claimed that the Novus Ordo is totally illicit. Today, you said it’s valid. But is it illicit also, and what does it mean?

Answer: No, the distinction is… Look, validity is an objective question that does not concern us directly. Validity is the question if the Mass takes place or not, if it is valid. We’re not talking about value. Be careful. I’ve seen in this country, many people make the mistake of confusing value with validity. Now, value is, if the value of a celebrated Mass is infinite, then it’s not subject of discussion here. Validity means, is the sacrament taking place, yes or not? I explain to you what I mean. If I baptize a child with Coca-Cola, it’s not baptized, period. If I baptize a child with water, it’s baptized, period. That’s validity. Baptism with Coca-Cola is invalid. Mass with Coca-Cola is invalid. Validity just is talking about the fact of the question if the sacrament takes place or not. Licitness is something else. Is it allowed? Am I allowed to celebrate Mass with regular white bread or do I have to use unleavened bread? Now, regular white bread is valid. The Mass takes place, but I commit a sin because I do something which is not allowed. Okay? You understand the difference. Why is the new Mass illicit? Well, I answered the question already in my speech. I said it’s against divine law. Why is it against divine law? Because the Popes and the councils have excluded the change in liturgy, period.

Question: And this all began with Pope Pius XII?

Answer: Yes, it did. Well, it actually began with something rather, on first sight, rather ridiculous. But it doesn’t need much to create an avalanche, right? Pope Leo XIII, when he created the beautiful prayers at the end of Mass, you know what I’m talking about, three Hail Mary, Salve Regina, and the Sancte Michaeli Archangeli, in 1899, he gave the permission that these prayers may be said in the vernacular. Now, basically speaking, there’s not much to that. I mean, this wouldn’t have destroyed the church on its own. (laughs) It’s a minor question. But it was the beginning. Nobody would’ve agreed with me in 1900. Now, of course, hindsight is the only perfect science, as Murphy’s Law says. But now we know this was the beginning, because for the first time, the priest wearing mass vestments… Now, you have to know something about this. When the priest baptizes or blesses a marriage, he does not wear mass vestments. He does not wear the chasuble and the maniple. He wears the stole and a sort of coat, the cope, or the choir mantle, as it is called in England. That’s a different vestment. Now, mass vestments, strictly, is the chasuble and the maniple. And the priest, very few priests observe that law, but the priest is supposed to take off maniple and chasuble for a sermon. Why? Because the sermon is not part of Mass. It is permitted to interrupt Mass for a sermon. In the old days, sermons very often were given before Mass, and I do that sometimes. But the sermon is not part of Mass. So, the priest is supposed to, the rubrics say that. The priest is supposed to take off his maniple and the chasuble. Well, it is permitted to keep the chasuble on, but you have to take off the maniple to show symbolically, because I told you, Mass is a sacrament. A sacrament is a sign. So, you have to look at the „superficial‟, the exterior too. And for the first time, with this tiny little mistake of Pope Leo XIII, the priest was permitted to use the vernacular without taking off his vestments. That means he wore the Mass vestments, the chasuble and the maniple, but he used the vernacular. Now, you know very well what vernacular means. When you talk about a guy cursing, you say, „Oh, he’s using vernacular.‟ Profane language. That’s the significance. The sacrament is the most holy thing on Earth. And if you use profane language for it, that’s the beginning of the end. Also, it changes the significance. Remember the gay ’90s? Does that mean homosexual or happy? Well, in the ‚90s, it meant the gay ’90s. Last century. Nowadays, you don’t know what the word gay means anymore. Does it mean somebody’s happy, somebody is enchanted, or somebody is a pervert? What does it mean? Huh? So, the significance of words changes, and if you use the vernacular for a sacrament, the significance of the sacrament changes. Clear?

Question: Why would the Pope, and the Church, and the upper clergy in Rome allow the Protestants to write the Mass? How could that… In other words, they wrote it, and then what happened thereafter?

Answer: I can only answer the question historically, because otherwise, I would have to pronounce judgment over the person of Paul VI, which I can’t, because I don’t know what motivated him. Well, Annibale Bugnini, the creator of the new rite, wanted to write a Protestant Mass, absolutely. It’s called ecumenical, but that means giving into the others, giving up your own faith and giving into the others. In this regard, it will interest you as an illustration what that means, that in the war in Bosnia, the Cardinal of Belgrade complained to the Pope, and he said, „How come the Serbian Orthodox take care of the Serbian Orthodox, period. The Muslims take care of the Muslims, period. The Catholics take care of everybody except the Catholics.‟ This is ecumenism. Now, this was the Cardinal of Belgrade, not Archbishop Lefebvre who said that. The Cardinal of Belgrade last year. This is ecumenism and its effect. And that’s the reason why the new Mass was written by Protestants. Annibale Bugnini wanted a Novus Ordo Missae. By the way, not exactly coincidental, the word Novus Ordo Missae with the words Novus Ordo Seclorum on the backside of your dollar bill. Bugnini wanted for the Church what President Bush wanted for the whole world, the New World Order. And Bugnini wanted the new Mass order. Why Paul VI permitted that, I don’t know. I can only assume, and one of the rules in combat is never assume anything.

Question: We have a quote from Jean Guitton saying that a friend of Paul VI said the advisor, that he wanted… that Paul VI wanted to have a Mass that was very Calvinist. Do you know anything about that?

Answer: No. Excuse me. Would you repeat the question so we get it all, because we can’t hear the question.

Questioner: We have a quotation from Jean Guitton.

Answer: Ah, ha. They have a quotation from Jean Guitton who said that Paul VI wanted a sort of Calvinist Mass. I don’t know anything about that. I only know that Paul VI wanted a new order of Mass. He said, and… But I wouldn’t even say he wanted so because Paul VI was a very strange creature. He said in the same speech, 1974, he said, „There is going to be a major change in the Roman Catholic Church.‟ And a couple of minutes later he said, „And one might ask oneself how this change came about.‟ And he never answered that question. He was the pope who destroyed, almost destroyed the church, and at the same time complained about the auto destruction of the church. He was the pope who had all the prayers mentioning the devil scratched out of liturgy, and then he said, „The fumes of Satan have entered the church.‟ So what do you make of a pope like this? I leave the judgment to you. I can’t judge him. I don’t know. I’ve been in Rome for 15 years, but I can’t judge the guy. And it’s not a pertinent question to our problem today. We are not interested why they destroyed liturgy. I’m interested in proving to you that it has been destroyed and that the new liturgy is illicit and that you cannot participate in it.

Question: Can you say that Vatican II did not give us the new Mass, therefore-

Answer: No, I cannot say that because Vatican II contradicts itself, which is one of the tricks of the reformers. They did that 400 years ago in Germany and in England. They contradict themselves. They say, „Oh, we have to stick to tradition.‟ And a couple of paragraphs later they say, „But tradition is alive and we have to change things.‟ And in Vatican II, the first document of Vatican II, which is called Sacrosanctum Concilium, you have a paragraph, I think it’s 55, that says, „The Latin order of Mass must be… The Latin must be maintained as the language of liturgy.‟ The same document, however, says that you may use the vernacular and it’s up to the bishops conferences to decide about it. I mean, either it was crackpots or very clever people who signed this document. And I believe it was both of them, depending on who signed it. Because if you leave it up to the bishops conferences to decide, you’re going to have an Australian church, a European church, an American church. And later on you will have a Church of Louisiana and you will have a Church of Mississippi, you will have a Church of the North and the Church of the South, which is the obvious result of bishops deciding what’s going on. That’s the same document. Article 22-2 of Sacrosanctum Concilium says it’s up to the bishops conferences to decide. And paragraph 54, I think it is, says that the Latin language must be maintained in liturgy. But this is a lunatic document and unacceptable because a Catholic must not accept documents that are ambiguous. Pius VI said that in Auctorem Fidei, a document condemning the Synod of Pistoia in which he says, „No Catholic must ever accept ambiguous documents that are not clear, that cannot be understood directly.‟ And the same pope, Pius VI, in the same document said, „The purpose of a council is to clarify things, not to create ambiguities.‟ Vatican II did not clarify anything. Okay?

Question: In Pope Paul VI in his diaries, we’ve heard that there was an impostor in his place for a space of about four or five years. Is that a fact? Is this something we can-

Answer: Well, my answer to this is, we do not indulge in Catholic Rainbow Press. And first of all, second, I do not believe it for a moment because Paul VI was a heretic before he became pope and he remained the same type of heretic when he was pope. And Paul VI wanted to change things in the church long before he was pope, and he did it when he was pope. Paul VI was, as a young priest, was a communist already who helped the communist students in Rome and who translated one of the worst books written in this century, which I mentioned yesterday.

Questioner: What book? Which one?

Answer: Integral Humanism by Jacques Maritain, trying to reconcile humanism with Christendom, which is a folly.

Question: If a person wants to attend the canonized Latin tradition Mass, where do you recommend they go? Do you recommend the Indult Mass?

Answer: No, Saint Pius X, and there’s a reason for that. It’s not just because they’re a nice priest. Sometimes they are not. The reason is, the Indult Mass is given under the condition that the priest who celebrates it accepts, in theory or on paper, Vatican II. You cannot accept Vatican II and be a Catholic. That’s impossible. And I will show this in my next lecture. I give you just one proof. Vatican II says, I quote Vatican II. Vatican II says, „The Spirit of Christ does not deny salvation, to give salvation, to the efforts of Protestant churches.‟ I quote, Dignitatis Humanae number three. This is a direct heresy against what Pope Eugene IV defined in the year 1442 at the Council of Florence, to be found in Denzinger-Schönmetzer 1351. And which says, „Nobody who is not subject to the Roman pontiff, even if he thinks he will shed his blood for our Lord, can be saved.‟ Now watch it. Here’s three distinctions I want to give you on your way. I gave them to people yesterday, I now give them to you. Does that mean all the Protestants will go to hell? No. Objectively speaking, they have no chance to be saved. Does that mean all the Japanese will go to hell because for the first 1500 years after Christ they did not have missionaries over there? No, it doesn’t mean that. I don’t know what will happen to them. Christ did not tell us. He did not tell us everything. Everybody accepts in daily life that in certain professions, and be it in the industry or the military, you have to live sometimes on a need to know basis, and you won’t get to know everything, because some things are classified top secret. Except in theology, everybody wants to know everything. Unfortunately, that’s not possible. We do not know what happens to an honest Japanese who wants to find out the truth for all of his life but never has the luck to meet a Catholic priest or faithful. I don’t know. Well, the church pronounces objective judgment. I gave you a distinction, objective/subjective already. That is very important. You have to understand that, because the usual emotional reaction is, „What? Only a Catholic who is believing everything the Pope says will go to heaven? What is up with all the others, they will go to hell?‟ I didn’t say that. I said objectively they have no chance. Objectively they have no chance, and objectively we have very little chance if we don’t watch out, and if we don’t stay in the life of grace. But subjectively, I do not know your conscience. I do not know your soul, and the church doesn’t. And I do not know what will happen to you when you die. I hope you will go to heaven. I sure hope. I don’t know. Objectively speaking, if you do not live a life of grace authentically, you will not go to heaven, period, objectively speaking. And this is the reason why Vatican II cannot be accepted. Vatican II said it’s the effort of the Protestant churches. If Vatican II had said one or the other Protestant might go to heaven because he’s such an honest person, et cetera, blah, blah, and by an extraordinary act of grace of God he may make it, okay. But Vatican II said the efforts of the Protestant churches will receive salvation from our Lord. That is explicit heresy. And you are not allowed to accept heresy if you’re a Catholic. This is why you can’t accept Vatican II, and this is why I do not agree with a priest who celebrates the old Mass but says Vatican II is all right. And this is why it is better to go to the Masses of the Society of Saint Pius X, because they reject Vatican II and they reject what is wrong in the present Pope’s encyclicals who quotes Vatican II. And he always quotes the worst parts of Vatican II. It’s not my fault. He just does that. Huh? And so, of course, again, (Latin), the church commandment does not bind on the grave incommodity. If you live right next, around the corner of the indult Mass, as long as you do not receive communion in the hand there because, for example, in Providence, Rhode Island at the indult Mass, they give communion in the hand, which is a sacrilege. You are not allowed to touch our Lord. I am allowed to touch him with those two fingers because they were anointed at my ordination. Those two fingers have been anointed at my ordination so that I have the right to touch our Lord with those four fingers. I have never had our Lord in my hand, and God forbid that I ever will do it, because the hand is the symbol of power of man. This is how I became a priest. This is how I celebrate Mass. So don’t ever dare to receive our Lord in your hand. If you can avoid going to the indult Mass or the Masses of Fraternity of Saint Peter, go to the Mass of the Society of Saint Pius X. However, as I said before, if there is no danger to your faith, if the priests there at the indult Mass do not speak against the faith and do not tell you about the glories of Vatican II, and if this chapel is just around your corner and you would have to drive one and a half hours to the other one, then go there. But remember what I said, and remember my warning, and subscribe to The Angelus. I’m serious.

Question: Why is it all being allowed in the Vatican anymore? Why is this tremendous-

Answer: Because the devil is efficient. The devil is very efficient, and he has a lot of useful idiots to serve him. Remember what Lenin said about the useful idiots? He said, „The West is going to buy the rope with which we will hang them.‟ That’s what Lenin said. And he talked about the useful idiots, meaning the communists in the West. He talked about the useful idiots in the West who will help communism to its victory. That’s how the devil works. Ronald Reagan was right when he called the Soviet Union „the empire of evil‟. He was made to meet Gorbachev later on, but he was right in what he said in the first place. And I can prove what I say. Look at the mausoleum of Lenin at the old temple of Baal in Babylon, a satanic god. And the devil works with three kinds of people, the always nice and naive who say, „Oh, if it’s the Pope, he can’t be wrong. And if the Pope tomorrow dyes his hair green, I will dye my hair green, because it reminds me of Saint Patrick.‟ And the second sort of people are the ones who don’t give a damn anyway. Those are the useful idiots. And then you have the people who want to destroy. Now, those very often are Satanists, or plain bad people who want to make money, keep their position, and whatever. And they are in that sense also part of the useful idiots. Unfortunately, I have to say, I have had the doubtful honor of getting to know at least 45 cardinals in Rome. I mean, talk to them, meet them. Believe me, they’re idiots. (laughs) Many of them. They do not know what is going on because they do not want to know. I know a cardinal who… This is recorded, I will not name, therefore. I know a cardinal who is intelligent, erudite, nice, pious, good willing. But the moment you talk about the inacceptability of Vatican II, his reason just blanks out. He starts to lose his logic. His arguments become confused and perfectly incoherent. And otherwise he’s a perfectly logical and intelligent person. These people have been brainwashed. You see, it’s the structure of obedience. The enemies of the church in the 1930s and 1940s and 1950s had 30 years at their disposal to drill and tame the Catholic clergy into perfect military, stubborn military obedience. Now, in the military, we have a different type of obedience because we do not deal with eternal law usually. Most officers in the Armed Forces of the United States would never tell an officer to shoot his wife, or would never tell an officer to commit a sacrilegious mass. So you don’t have to deal with that kind of issue. You have to deal with stupid bureaucracy and bad strategy and stuff like that. But in the church, you deal with a lot more important things. Now, in the church you cannot work on the basis of military blind obedience. You have to work on a basis of responsible obedience and instructed obedience, because real obedience will always follow the highest command. If the supreme commander of the Armed Forces of the United States is the president, at the present time, unfortunate fact, but usually a very good system. And if the president says, „We will now wage war against Canada,‟ an officer cannot say, „I won’t,‟ unless this is a mean and vicious attack against innocent people and the law of God is against it and the law of the church is against it, in which case the officer will say no. He might get court-martialed. But then you have Saint Thomas More was court-martialed by his king, Henry VIII, because he didn’t want to sign an oath against the church and matrimony. So, a priest who says, „Yes, it’s against my conscience really, but I’m bound to obedience,‟ has not understood his position, has not understood theology, has not understood the priesthood. The priest’s obedience has to go first of all to our Lord Jesus Christ and tradition. And if my pope, John Paul II, says something against the tradition, I will not obey, because I obey our Lord and the church. And if my bishop tells me, „Father Hess, you will celebrate the mass in the new order,‟ I will say, „Your Excellency, I will not, because God does not want that.‟ And if he says, „Have you had a personal revelation?‟ I will say, „Yes, the tradition of the church and your predecessors.‟ And this is the answer.

Question: Would it mean that then you would be told to leave?

Answer: I don’t care. Our Lord will not tell me to leave. Archbishop Lefebvre was asked why his name does not appear anymore in the papal annuary, where you got all the names of all the bishops. He said, „I don’t know and I don’t care. I’m interested if my name appears in the Book of Life.‟ And that’s the answer of one who had the faith and who did not want to make career. I’m not interested if my bishop likes me. Absolutely not. I’m interested if our Lord likes me, and He likes me, He loves me all the time and forever, but He likes me when I’m in the life of grace. So I’m interested if I’m in the life of grace. I’m interested if I follow the will of our Lord manifested in the tradition of the church, manifested by 260 popes and not the last three ones. And if the last three popes want me to do something different from all the 260 popes before, I will tell the last three popes to get lost. And I’m in perfect obedience.

Question: You young people, you have no questions about all of this? (laughs) You believe everything I say? You understand everything I say? I would expect at least, for example, the following question from you. Does that mean that all of my friends who go to the new mass are in sin? Does it mean that?

Answer: Well, I gave the answer just before. Yeah. I said, no, you got to try to convert them not doing this anymore. But as long as they do it in good faith, it’s fine. It’s their priests who will suffer for the sin committed, not these people. These people, you have been instructed, and other people present, and I, in the old days, we were instructed by those heretics. They told us this is all perfectly right, all good, all fine. And when you trust those priests, you get lost. But believe me, if you went to the new mass long time ago or until yesterday or whatever, the priest who talked you into doing it will suffer for it, not you. Priests have great responsibilities and I know exactly, if I tell you something wrong here, at the last judgment, I will get zapped and not you. Huh? So remember that.

Comment from Audience: But hear after today, that they know it.

Answer: Yes, exactly. Now you have been told. Now the least thing you have to do now is do a little bit on research on what I said to see if you can trust what I said. If you say, „Oh, I don’t believe what this guy said,‟ be careful. I have informed you, and I quoted popes. I did not quote Hans Küng and Karl Rahner, and what’s his name, Andrew Greeley. I did not quote people who are not in good standing with the church. I quoted 200 popes, I quoted the councils, and I quoted dogma. So you cannot lightly do away with what I said today, otherwise your conscience would be…